Forum Politics Discussion

[Honest Abel]

Like what? If most members want a certain member to be banned, and there are only a few members that want that member to stay on the forums, then what? If you ban that member, the few members will be unhappy. If you leave that member there, most members won't be happy. So you can't please both groups. Leaving that member on suspension may or may not make most members happy. Perhaps the only way to appease most members is by banning that member. It's kind of ridiculous to have to let that member stay if he causes trouble and most members don't want him back. It could also depend on what the matter is. Some things are more serious than others. A decision for RPG Inferno could be more important than closing a thread.

You know what would be done in that situation with a more democratic method? The member would be banned without even asking the members (because the staff should be trusted enough to make their own decisions as they are needed, as a democratic republic should function), and then afterwards people can argue with that staff member's decision and try to persuade him or the other staff to unban the member. In a democracy, the best factor isn't that a majority and minority can be decided, it's that anyone can make a really good point. If only one person out of a hundred wants this member unbanned and has extremely good reasoning, how is he supposed to triumph in your vote system? In democracy, that member would be able to provide his opinion and argument to be able to get that member unbanned, without breaking any rules or receiving feedback like "Don't talk about that, it's done and over, you'll be banned next if you don't drop it." See what I'm saying?

This is the "give and take" I so ambiguously hinted at earlier. I'll start of with my version of DarylFalchion's example. Four people want chicken, one person wants hamburgers. Now let's assume that the one person that wants hamburgers heard on the news that chicken in the New York area (where they live) has been infected with E. Coli. In your situation, they would all die from poisoning. However, apply the type of democracy I'm talking about, and that one friend can convince his uninformed buddies to eat at the burger joint because of what he heard on the news, and they all live.

I'm sure if you've read Ethics by Benedict de Spinoza, you'd appreciate the value of logical discourse and see how it can apply to almost every situation. A graph based on votes doesn't really tell you anything about reasoning. Reasoning is what can save a lot of these situations, and having some small discussion on issues rather than just taking a vote can surely prevent any bad decision making, and will please both the minority and majority because either one (in an intelligent community) will be able to convince the other side of their view, and thus it's nobody's loss.

Thank you for reading how to appease everyone all the time.

 

[Tidus Blade]

You know what would be done in that situation with a more democratic method? The member would be banned without even asking the members (because the staff should be trusted enough to make their own decisions as they are needed, as a democratic republic should function), and then afterwards people can argue with that staff member's decision and try to persuade him or the other staff to unban the member. In a democracy, the best factor isn't that a majority and minority can be decided, it's that anyone can make a really good point. If only one person out of a hundred wants this member unbanned and has extremely good reasoning, how is he supposed to triumph in your vote system? In democracy, that member would be able to provide his opinion and argument to be able to get that member unbanned, without breaking any rules or receiving feedback like "Don't talk about that, it's done and over, you'll be banned next if you don't drop it." See what I'm saying?

This is the "give and take" I so ambiguously hinted at earlier. I'll start of with my version of DarylFalchion's example. Four people want chicken, one person wants hamburgers. Now let's assume that the one person that wants hamburgers heard on the news that chicken in the New York area (where they live) has been infected with E. Coli. In your situation, they would all die from poisoning. However, apply the type of democracy I'm talking about, and that one friend can convince his uninformed buddies to eat at the burger joint because of what he heard on the news, and they all live.

I'm sure if you've read Ethics by Benedict de Spinoza, you'd appreciate the value of logical discourse and see how it can apply to almost every situation. A graph based on votes doesn't really tell you anything about reasoning. Reasoning is what can save a lot of these situations, and having some small discussion on issues rather than just taking a vote can surely prevent any bad decision making, and will please both the minority and majority because either one (in an intelligent community) will be able to convince the other side of their view, and thus it's nobody's loss.

Thank you for reading how to appease everyone all the time.

Wow! You really know your goverments! Are you a politician or soemthing?

 

[der Astronom]

That only works if the majority is willing to listen to the minority. It doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will be happy in the end. It really depends on what you mean by the minority "having a really good reason"; sometimes they will have one, and sometimes they won't. Perhaps the information that chicken in New York is infected with E. Coli is incorrect because pork is infected with E. Coli, not chicken and the bird flu doesn't affect too many customers who buy chicken. The majority of members who listen to the minority may still have reasons why they don't agree. I could also go back to the RPG Inferno example. There were a lot more people who wanted the RPG Inferno back than people who didn't. If we had used the democracy system, then the majority of people who wanted the RPG Inferno back should have been listening to the minority of people saying that having the RPG Inferno back wasn't a good idea because we lacked adequate staff members for it. We could simply have decided to turn down the request for having RPG Inferno because of the reasoning of the few people that didn't want it back; afterall, no staff members, no RPG Inferno. This wouldn't have made most of the members very happy. But instead, the majority of people got what they wanted because they were able to find adequate staff members.

Some cases are actually a lot more subjective than you give reason credit for. I mentioned the example of flaming, and while some people like it, others don't. Most normal forums don't allow it, and neither do they allow drama either. Some of these more democratic forums actually allow flaming and drama, but there is good reason against allowing it on a forum, even if others disagree. There's not necessarily a right or wrong answer to this.

Furthermore, a forum could exist for the specific purpose that the forum creator had in mind. In keeping with this purpose, there would be some people who find the forum and do not fit in adequately, either because they don't discuss things on that forum that are within the guidelines, or do not get along with members on that forum. If that forum had really been a dictatorship, then they would have made that member stay, no matter how inadequate or inappropriate he may be. But in fact, no one is obligated to stay. Some forums just aren't for everyone because of the way some people act, and because the forum creator is gearing his or her forum towards a specific crowd, and not just everyone. It is his right to do this with his services if he pleases. Even LOCP has this attribute, since it won't let minors sign up for it.

 

[Warrior of Light]

You know what would be done in that situation with a more democratic method? The member would be banned without even asking the members (because the staff should be trusted enough to make their own decisions as they are needed, as a democratic republic should function), and then afterwards people can argue with that staff member's decision and try to persuade him or the other staff to unban the member. In a democracy, the best factor isn't that a majority and minority can be decided, it's that anyone can make a really good point. If only one person out of a hundred wants this member unbanned and has extremely good reasoning, how is he supposed to triumph in your vote system? In democracy, that member would be able to provide his opinion and argument to be able to get that member unbanned, without breaking any rules or receiving feedback like "Don't talk about that, it's done and over, you'll be banned next if you don't drop it." See what I'm saying?

Point is some people feel that "I like him" or "he was cool" are sufficient points for unbanning a memeber. Trust me I've seen those arguements quite a few times, illogical as they are. That's why we can't allow the miniority to decide...because they will make ANY reason they can just to see their friend unbanned. Giving either the staff or the majority the right to decide is fairer to me. Although to be honest, it should be up to the owner to decide as he is the one who paying for all this. If someone was giving you a free service you don't expect them to accept the condiitions of the person that's getting it do you?

This is the "give and take" I so ambiguously hinted at earlier. I'll start of with my version of DarylFalchion's example. Four people want chicken, one person wants hamburgers. Now let's assume that the one person that wants hamburgers heard on the news that chicken in the New York area (where they live) has been infected with E. Coli. In your situation, they would all die from poisoning. However, apply the type of democracy I'm talking about, and that one friend can convince his uninformed buddies to eat at the burger joint because of what he heard on the news, and they all live.

Who is DarylFalchion?

My name is Dragonsoul, thank you....Do we know each other because you do seem familiar...Why do I feel I feel we've had this discussion with you before?

And going with my example is it possible that the guy who wants hamburgers just bullshiting about the E Coli just cause he wants the others to do as he asks? Isn't it entirely possible that he can mistaken?

I'm sure if you've read Ethics by Benedict de Spinoza, you'd appreciate the value of logical discourse and see how it can apply to almost every situation. A graph based on votes doesn't really tell you anything about reasoning. Reasoning is what can save a lot of these situations, and having some small discussion on issues rather than just taking a vote can surely prevent any bad decision making, and will please both the minority and majority because either one (in an intelligent community) will be able to convince the other side of their view, and thus it's nobody's loss.

Reasoning is subjective my friend. One man's reason is another man's insanity. In other words you are assuming things here. The staff are just doing what the members want rather than appeasing one or two people. And no if you truly are so knowledgedable there are people who will complain just because they've nothing better to do.

Thank you for reading how to appease everyone all the time.

*laughs* Yes, because the world is just that perfect.

 

[Honest Abel]

Send Message Via Yahoo! to Dragonsoul (darylfalchion)

I couldn't bother going back to the previous page to look up your name, and all I remembered was your Yahoo because I've seen it somewhere before.

Point is some people feel that "I like him" or "he was cool" are sufficient points for unbanning a memeber. Trust me I've seen those arguements quite a few times, illogical as they are.

I already covered this with my "(in an intelligent community)" condition.

It is his right to do this with his services if he pleases. Even LOCP has this attribute, since it won't let minors sign up for it.

That's not my understanding. They said minors are allowed if they're intelligent or mature, or some similar qualifier. I'll have to check it out myself.

That only works if the majority is willing to listen to the minority. It doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will be happy in the end.

What makes everyone happy in my scenario isn't purely the fact that people end up agreeing, it's that people end up agreeing most of the time; a community whose members realize that they must forfeit some ideas to their opponents in knowing they'll win other debates is the kind of ideal interaction, the give and take of rational individuals, that spawns the intellectual happiness I speak of.

 

[der Astronom]

Well, not every individual is intelligent, and you can't make them feel unwelcomed on a forum just because they're not intelligent. Some members are not necessarily intelligent, but if they abide by the guidelines, we don't have a problem.

With LOCP allowing "mature" and "intelligent" minors (and I don't see how flaming or drama could be mature or intelligent anyways), there are still restrictions on the kind of crowd you want on LOCP. Again, LOCP is geared towards a specific crowd, and not necessarily everyone. Likewise, it could be said that FFF is geared towards people who like talking about Final Fantasy and video games, and can get along well with other members and don't flame them, intelligent or not.

I could also ask that "give and take" also applies to a staff member's decision on the forum. The minority may not like it, but what right do they have to complain? The staff are giving away their services for FREE, and thanklessly. They owe you nothing. Perhaps the minority might not like some of the staff's decisions, but just because the staff decide to do something they don't like doesn't mean we won't listen to them in the future.

 

[Honest Abel]

Well I can't speak for LOCP, but if they want to exclude stupid people as a community, I don't see the problem.

 

[Sar]

I think you'd fit in well there, Clotifan. Why haven't you joined, yet?

By the way, anyone is welcome to join LOCP and argue that your fascist style of government is better than our Athenian Democracy.

 

[der Astronom]

I'm not arguing that the facist government is any better than democracy. I just don't see the difference. I wouldn't go to LOCP to argue for facism because that forum was clearly meant to have the members take control over the service rather than the person who purchased it, since he purchased it for that reason. But not everyone who buys a service does. Most people who buy a service have certain expectations for their members and how they behave. If they can't, then they're obviously not part of the specific crowd that the forum creator had in mind. In most cases, the kind of crowd that the forum creator wants is not necessarily intelligent; just people who can discuss the relevant topics without breaking the rules. And keeping within the guidelines is not all that difficult anyways.

 

[Warrior of Light]

I couldn't bother going back to the previous page to look up your name, and all I remembered was your Yahoo because I've seen it somewhere before.

I'm replying to you right now and I can see all the names of the persons who posted before me up to10 replies without having to go back to the previous page. Besides by logic a person would use the first username that came up and in this case it is Dragonsoul.

Try again.

Yes, I do believe I know you from elsewhere and I think this isn't the first time you've joined a forum and decided to preach to the staff how to run things day or so after.

I already covered this with my "(in an intelligent community)" condition.

Yes because we all know for certain that every single member goes through some sort of questionaire to determine their intelligence or something, right?

That's not my understanding. They said minors are allowed if they're intelligent or mature, or some similar qualifier. I'll have to check it out myself.

And who determines that? Isn't that (providing porn to minors) against the law or something, anyways?

What makes everyone happy in my scenario isn't purely the fact that people end up agreeing, it's that people end up agreeing most of the time; a community whose members realize that they must forfeit some ideas to their opponents in knowing they'll win other debates is the kind of ideal interaction, the give and take of rational individuals, that spawns the intellectual happiness I speak of.

Yes, because we all know that when a person dosen't get what they want that they will always love you (or the staff) anyways... And, again, as I stated before LOCP is most definitely not some sort of Utopia.

Oh, and thanks for ignoring most of points. Makes it easier to show people what you're really about.

 

[Honest Abel]

Dragon, I wish I could have a similarly snotty attitude; it would make my points sound more intelligent, like yours are.

You can see the ten previous posts on the page? Weird, all I could see was mine when I was editing it to reply to your post, because mine was the first post on a new page of replies. Your post is on the previous page. DragonSoul is too generic for me to remember, whereas DarylFalchion, I remember from ACF or some similarly ridiculous forum.

About your quips regarding an intelligent community, it's easy to create an intelligent community by ostracising the members the community deems as stupid. Ostracism is an outstanding feature of Athenian Democracy! Also, I don't recall ever hearing about providing porn to minors, it was about allowing minors to post.

About ignoring your points, I'm pretty sure I covered everything you said with my long post. You just need to keep searching for knowledge! Otherwise, I simply disregarded your points because they were petty, saturated with anger, or because I don't care about altering your opinion because this forum is beyond repair anyway.

 

[Warrior of Light]

Dragon, I wish I could have a similarly snotty attitude; it would make my points sound more intelligent, like yours are.

Don't like it much do you? Yes, well, I'm fairly certain the staff (and most of the members) don't like your bossy attitude either.

You can see the ten previous posts on the page? Weird, all I could see was mine when I was editing it to reply to your post, because mine was the first post on a new page of replies. Your post is on the previous page. DragonSoul is too generic for me to remember, whereas DarylFalchion, I remember from ACF or some similarly ridiculous forum.

I'm responding to you right now and AGAIN I can see your username...as I did for every single other post I've made on FFF. ...And so you do recognize me, eh? I sure recognized your one day joining forum preaching antics....Btw, insults about other forums are not premitted here so avoid that comment of "ridiculous", thank you.

About your quips regarding an intelligent community, it's easy to create an intelligent community by ostracising the members the community deems as stupid. Ostracism is an outstanding feature of Athenian Democracy! Also, I don't recall ever hearing about providing porn to minors, it was about allowing minors to post.

Deems as stupid by who? The staff? I'm sure the staff would have no problems removing certain individuals from this thread who's sole purpose was to troll their forum. I suspect they are only waiting for those particular people to make an even bigger mess of themselves before "ostracisming" them.

And if LOCP has porn and allows memebers who are minors to post and view said porn (as they deem them "mature") they are breaking a law.

About ignoring your points, I'm pretty sure I covered everything you said with my long post. You just need to keep searching for knowledge! Otherwise, I simply disregarded your points because they were petty, saturated with anger, or because I don't care about altering your opinion because this forum is beyond repair anyway.

No, you didn't. You're ignoring them because you haven't anything to reply with. Petty? Saturated with anger? So that's sufficient reasons to ignore good points? I'm not making mention of diapers or any other thing a certain someone said on ACF.

And if you feel FFF is beyond repair why don't you just jump ship? I assure you we won't be following you to your forum to troll it cause you know, some of us actually have a life outside of joining random forums to preach about how utopian ours is.

Btw, hi aerosol.

 

[Honest Abel]

I was actually just editing my last post with this:

But looking back, I'll give replies to the two points of yours I missed just for the hell of it:

1. Speaking allegorically, if the hamburger lover told the friends about the E. Coli., they would then go and confirm it by watching the news or looking online, or asking around. How this applies to the real situation: if someone argues a certain point or gives a certain reason to, say, protect a staff member from being demoted, then the people he's trying to convince would look up the information to verify it, or use logic (whichever applies). So the hamburger lover would be caught if he tried to pull a fast one.

2. Let's hope there are people to complain even if they don't support the argument. At least someone will be brave enough to bring up points that might make people reconsider their views.

Also, in response to your latest post, the community would deem a person stupid. If a member says "ban this person, he's dumb" I'm sure the first staff member that came along would do it. About LOCP, you need to be allowed into a certain usergroup to view the porn forum. Why I don't jump ship is because I don't really care about how this forum is run, nor am I trying to change anything here. Seems you are confusing me with Sar, Abel, and/or Sekhu.

 

[der Astronom]

I was going to suggest ostracism for members that most of the forum community doesn't want back. In other words, they don't necessarily have to be "stupid" or "unintelligent", they could be members that the forum community feels they are harassing others by flaming, causing drama or being a nuisance for the staff. If you want to put it another way, members who flame, harass others or cause drama are the "unintelligent" ones. I've read about Athenian Democracy. I do know that ostracism was done as a vote. Similarly, I could post a poll to see which members should or shouldn't be banned. For some members, I wouldn't be surprised at the results.

I'm quite sure it was mentioned at the beginning of this thread not to get this forum or LOCP involved in terms of criticism, so you would do well to leave that out of this discussion.

 

[Honest Abel]

Why I brought up LOCP and FFF (if I was indeed the first to do it, it might have been Dragon):

I'm sure nobody would mind if other forums are used as examples, so let's keep it free of the bias that saturated the last thread so.

I thought we could bring up any forum as an example without bias.

Yeah, ostracism doens't need to be because of stupidity, it could happen because of other factors as well. And as always, it's up to the people.

 

[der Astronom]

You have biased FFF by indirectly implying that it's in need of help "because this forum is beyond repair anyway" and that it's somehow in trouble and not operating how you think it should work, which is a bias.

 

[Honest Abel]

Sorry, I didn't mean any disrespect when I said it's beyond repair, I was simply saying that I doubt I or this topic are going to change any of your policies. I had to defend my reason to argue after it was put in question by Dragon, who made it seem I was simply trying to attack you guys. I've certainly been too cordial to do that.

 

[der Astronom]

Well, you did sound like you were attacking the forums.

I did know that you or the people that started this topic had the intent of trying to change the policies here at this forum, so that's why I moved this topic to the debate section, where it can be discussed neutrally. In other words, whether or not we choose to change our policies is irrelevant, and this will simply be a discussion about forum policies in general, and not necessarily as it applies to strictly LOCP or FFF.

 

[Honest Abel]

That was the intent from the beginning, a neutral discussion, based on the first post here. I understand your concerns and I won't bring up FFF again.

Also, I don't know how you got the idea I'm trying to attack you. I thought we were having a pretty unbiased and fair discourse before Dragon showed up. In fact, I just looked back over my posts and I haven't insulted your or FFF once, not even compared it to a dictatorship.

 

[Warrior of Light]

1. Speaking allegorically, if the hamburger lover told the friends about the E. Coli., they would then go and confirm it by watching the news or looking online, or asking around. How this applies to the real situation: if someone argues a certain point or gives a certain reason to, say, protect a staff member from being demoted, then the people he's trying to convince would look up the information to verify it, or use logic (whichever applies). So the hamburger lover would be caught if he tried to pull a fast one

The point of the matter is simple: I'd be more likely believe the four than the one. If one person says you're a horse ignore them. If two people do you might want to check that out. If three, four or more do go eat some hay. I think you can get the concept out of that. One person is more likely to lie than four....thus making it more rational to take the word of the four.

2. Let's hope there are people to complain even if they don't support the argument. At least someone will be brave enough to bring up points that might make people reconsider their views.

Let's not hope, thank you. Some points should never be considered or brought up. Banning everyone right this instant and deleting this forum because ONE person asks for it is just a silly thing for the staff to even consider. Since it is Darkblade who pays for this forum it is up to him as what happens in it.

Also, in response to your latest post, the community would deem a person stupid. If a member says "ban this person, he's dumb" I'm sure the first staff member that came along would do it.

I should hope not. See my above comment. Because one person wants another person banned is no reason for a staff member to go ahead with it. It's quite possible that said person is merely the victim of a person who goes to forum and forum to hunt said person down. It's up to a staff memeber (and ultimately the admins) to decide the member merits banning. And once that's done that should be the end of it.

About LOCP, you need to be allowed into a certain usergroup to view the porn forum.

That wasn't the point I brought up. I asked if they were underage. If they are underage and premitted within that usergroup they run the risk of breaking a law. I might just go and investigate this. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

After all, since you feel so inclined to preach this forum about how its run don't we have the same right to preach to you?

Why I don't jump ship is because I don't really care about how this forum is run, nor am I trying to change anything here.

Then why, good sir, are you here? If you don't care about FFF nor do you feel you can change anything why are posting at all? Just to preach about your forum or tell everyone else how to run their own affairs?

Don't you have anything better to do?

Seems you are confusing me with Sar, Abel, and/or Sekhu.

Certainly not. I know exactly who you are. Seen you do this on other forums too.

Edit:

I thought we could bring up any forum as an example without bias.

And you don't think "ridiclous" wasn't a form of bias against another forum (ACF)?

Yeah, ostracism doens't need to be because of stupidity, it could happen because of other factors as well. And as always, it's up to the people.

It's up to the owner of the site, actually. They can decide if they want to assign the task to their staff or an open vote.

Sorry, I didn't mean any disrespect when I said it's beyond repair, I was simply saying that I doubt I or this topic are going to change any of your policies. I had to defend my reason to argue after it was put in question by Dragon, who made it seem I was simply trying to attack you guys. I've certainly been too cordial to do that.

Beyond repair is to imply that something is broken. Don't backpetal. Besides, after having been here for all of what...two days? You feel you know how to run this forum better than its own adminstrators? That's implied insult right there.

That was the intent from the beginning, a neutral discussion, based on the first post here. I understand your concerns and I won't bring up FFF again.

Or LOCP or ACF?

Also, I don't know how you got the idea I'm trying to attack you. I thought we were having a pretty unbiased and fair discourse before Dragon showed up. In fact, I just looked back over my posts and I haven't insulted your or FFF once, not even compared it to a dictatorship.

No, but you sure insulted ACF didn't you? That's hardly a fair discourse. I just find your sudden assumption that you know exactly how FFF or any other forum should be run simply by joining the other day as rather...persumptous.